BAIJ NATH PRASAD TRIPATHI versus THE STATE OF BHOPAL

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 13-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
BAIJ NATH PRASAD TRIPATHI 
v. 
THE STATE OF BHOPAL 
(and connected petition) 
[1957l 
(S. R. DAS C.J., VENKATARAMA AY'lAR, B. P. SINHA, 
S. K. DAs and GAJENDRi .. GADI'-Ak JJ.) 
C1·iminal trial-Prosecut:'on 
for offences under s. 161 of the 
!11dian Penal Code and s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act-
Proceedings quashed fur waut of proper sanction-Fresh sanction-
Second trial for same offences-IVhether barred-Constitution of India,. 
Art. 20 (2)-Code of Criminal Procedure, s. 403. 
The accused was tried and convicted by a Special Judge for 
offences under s. 161 of the 
Indian 
Penal Code and s. 5 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act. 
On appeal the whole proceedings. 
were quashed as being ab initio invalid for want of proper sanction. 
The authorities accorded fresh sanction and directed the accused 
to be tried by a Special Judge for the same offences. 
It was-
contended by 
the accused that the second trial was barred 
by 
Art. 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and by s. 40.~ of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure. 
Held. that the trial was not barred. Art. 20 (2) had no applica-
tion in the case. 
'fhe accused was not being prosecuted 
and 
ptinished for the sa1ne offence more than once, the earlier proceed-
ings h.J.ving been held to be null and void. 
The accused was not 
tried in the earlier proceedings by a Court of competent jurisdiction,.. 
nor was there 
any conviction or 
acquittal in force 
within the 
1neaninq of s. 403(1) of the Code to stand as a bar against the trial: 
for the sa1ne offence. 
Yusofalli Mui/a v. The King, A.LR. (1949) P. C. 264, 
Basdea 
Agtrrwalla v. King-Emperor, (1945) F.C.R. 93 and Budha Mal v. 
State of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1952, decided on October 
3, 1952, followed. 
ORIGINAL 
JuRrso1cTION : Petition No. 115 of 1956, 
and Petition No. 132 of 1956. 
Petitions under Article 
32 of the Constitution of 
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 
B. D. Sharma, for the petitioners, 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General 
of 
India, Porus: 
A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
651 
1957. February 13. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
S. K. DAs J.-These two _petitions for the issue of 
appropriate 
writs restraining 
the 
respondents 
from 
prosecuting and trying the 
two petitioners 
on certain 
criminal 
charges 
in 
circumstances to 
be 
presently 
stated, raise the same question 
of law 
and have been 
heard together. This judgment will govern them both. 
Baij Nath Prasad Tripathi, 
petitioner 
in 
Petition 
No. 115 of 1956, was a Sub-Inspector of 
Police in the 
then State of Bhopal. 
He was prosecuted in the Court 
of Shri B. K. Puranik, 
Special 
Judge, 
Bhopal, 
and 
convicted of offences 
under s. 161, Indian Penal Code, 
and s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He 
was sentenced to nine months' rigorous 
imprisonment 
on each count. 
He preferred an appeal against the 
conviction and sentences to the 
Judicial Commissioner 
of Bhopal. 
The Judicial Commissioner 
held 
by his 
judgment dated 
March 7, 1956, that no sanction accord-
ing to law had been given for the 
prosecution of the 
petitioner and the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to 
take cognizance of the case ;, the trial was accordingly 
ab initia invalid and liable to be quashed. He accord-
ingly set aside the conviction and quashed the entire 
proceedings before the Special Judge. He then observed: 
"The parties would thus be relegatecf to the position as 
if no legal charge-sheet had been submitted against the 
appellant." On April 4, 1956, the Chief Commissioner 
of 
Bhopal 
passed 
an order 
under s. 7(2) 
of the 
Criminal Law Amendment 
Act, 1952, (No. XL VI of 
1952) that the petitioner shall be tried by Shri S. N. Shri-
vastava, Special 
Judge, Bhopal, 
for certain 
offences 
under 
the 
Prevention of 
Corruption Act read with 
s. 161, 
Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner 
is that he cannot be prosecuted and tried again for the 
same offences under the aforesaid 
order of 
April 1, 
1956. 
Sudhakar Dube, petitioner in Petition No. 132 of 
1956, was also a Sub-Inspector of Police in the then 
State of Bhopal. He was also prosecuted in the Court 
of Shri B. K. Puranik, 
Special 
Judge, 
Bhopal, on a 
1957 
Bdij }{ ath Prasad 
Tripa;hi 
"· 
The Stale of Bho~al 
S. K. Dar]. 
l95i 
Baij N atA Prasad 
Tripalbi 
v. 
Tiii Slat• of Bhop.i 
S. K.D.,]. 
652 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
charge of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.